confused? join the club!

Well, Marathon Resources were certainly offered a new exploration lease in the Arkaroola Sanctuary by the Department for Mineral Resources Development on Saturday. And that's about the point where the certainty ends.

Marathon immediately responded that they were thinking about it; they'd have to get the board together to mull it over. An odd response, you might think, given some of the fairly inadequate media reporting suggesting Marathon had won its way back into active exploration at Arkaroola.

Well, they haven't. Or, at least , they're in the same situation they were before: they're suspended from drilling, but they can do other non-intrusive survey work, and this won't change until Paul Holloway's new legislation has passed.

So if all this is the same why does Marathon not simply say 'ta' when offered the new lease?

Because conditions have changed. The Department for Environment and Heritage must now approve any proposed exploration program as well, rather than just the Minerals Department as before. (You might be interested to know that this puts Arkaroola on a par with the bulk of SA's reserve system - the 'jointly-proclaimed' parks and reserves.)

'parts of arkaroola should never be open to mining'

But that's not all: some parts of Arkaroola are now going to be off limits to the mining industry altogether; Paul Holloway now says 'there are some parts of the Arkaroola area that should never be open to mining'. This has been reported as Marathon not being allowed into some areas - completely unsurprisingly since that's the obvious implication. But which ones? Is Mount Gee now off limits? If not Mount Gee, then where? What exactly did the Minister really mean?

Well, Mark Parnell had a go at asking Paul Holloway this question in Parliament on Tuesday - the full transcript follows - and apart from the kind of aggressive and accusatory reaction the defensive are often inclined to give he didn't offer much by way of clarification. (Read below and see!)

There is a joint process in place with the Dept.s for Environment and Minerals developing a framework for identifying those areas in the northern Flinders to be excluded from the reach of miners. Fine. This is long overdue, has been called for by this writer for one, and will please many.

However, no we can't know which parts of Arkaroola are to be among those excluded from the mining industry's reach because the relevant stakeholders have to be negotiated with first and the overall policy developed etc. etc.

Well, 'stakeholder' I thought, so I asked Marg Sprigg about it; no, she didn't know which bits of Arkaroola might be excluded! Then again, she only owns the place...

bloody annoyed

Now, I for one, am going to be bloody annoyed if, in the context of issuing a media release whose subject is the reissuing an exploration lease to Marathon Resources, it transpires that areas inside that lease - i.e those relevant to the subject at hand - are not actually under consideration for exclusion from mining!

Protecting, say, the Arkaroola section of the Mawson Plateau is highly commendable. Great! But it's not the point here! We want to know what your government is doing about Mount Gee, Mount Painter, the Armchair, and the Ridgetop Track, Paul! Thats what your media release is supposed to be about, not something nice you might be doing up the road a bit once you sort a few things out!

In fact, in the circumstances it's deceptive to suggest now that areas of Arkaroola would be off limits to mining if it subsequently transpires there aren't to be any in EL 3258!

So, has Marathon been told they're not to return to some areas? Or they may be excluded from them in the future? If not, what's going to happen if the process Mr. Holloway refers to identifies such areas inside the lease after its been reissued?

Given the repeated emphasis Paul Holloway has been placing on the vital importance of 'Sovereign Risk' in all this, and if he believes - as he apparently does - that he can't simply refuse to reissue an expiring lease to a company that went as far off the rails as Marathon did by their own admission... well, I can't say I feel optimistic about any tough future intervention to defend the environment! The lease is going to expire again in 12 months, Paul, and if Marathon are still around they're going to want another one then, too!...

fear not - front reception is safe!...

The only area that Holloway identified in response to Mark's question was what he calls 'the Arkaroola Lodge.' [The Labor Cabinet's geographic grasp of this issue has been consistently hazy - see Will one of Mike's Minders please buy him a Map? Must we assume that only Greens and Liberals ever go camping in the Flinders?]

Well, it's very reassuring to know that an access shaft won't be able to be driven in from the Arkaroola Resort Front Reception Desk, Paul! But when the heck is the Sanctuary going to get the protection it deserves, and the South Australian people want to give it?

Thousands of people have written to this Government on this issue and public opinion could hardly be clearer. They deserve a clear response. If you're refusing to give the people what they want you need to be brave enough to come out and say it!

The Parliamentary exchange from Tuesday:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: On Saturday, the minister [Minerals Minister Paul Holloway] announced that he had offered a brand-new exploration licence over the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary to Marathon Resources, the company that had been suspended from drilling following the discovery of illegally dumped waste and other breaches of its licence. Included in the minister's news release was the following statement:

There are some parts of the Arkaroola area that should never be open to mining.

However, last month, on 9 September, in answer to my question, the minister implied that, until his proposed changes to the Mining Act are passed, another mining company could just automatically step in and take over exploration activities if he did not issue a new licence to Marathon. The minister said:

… if for some reason the licence is not renewed immediately, someone else could apply for a licence over that area. The preliminary advice I have is that the Warden's Court would almost certainly issue another licence over that area. There is no power within the act. One of the amendments that the government will be looking at will address that situation. Certainly, the preliminary advice I have is that, if a licence over a particular area is not renewed, anyone else could apply unless, of course, there is some other means of preventing it.

That answer ignores the fact that there is another means of preventing it under the existing act. The minister already has the power to exempt land from the operation of the Mining Act under section 8(1)(c). In fact, Warren Gorge, in the Flinders Ranges north of Quorn, is already an area reserved from the Mining Act. The official reason on the department's website is 'to prevent further mining in a scenic area'. My questions are:

1.Does the minister accept that he does have the power under the current Mining Act to protect parts of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary from mineral exploration?

2.Why does the scenic area of Warren Gorge deserve more protection from mining than the truly breathtaking and iconic areas around Arkaroola?

3.Which parts of the Arkaroola area does the minister think should 'never be open to mining', as stated in his news release on Saturday?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY : The Hon. Mr Parnell put out a press release, totally inaccurate and full of gross dishonesty, and did not refer to the main point I made at the weekend, namely, that the government was developing an environmental management plan for the entire northern Flinders region. We need to understand where the Hon. Mr Parnell is coming from: for a start, he opposes uranium mining, so any excuse that is around he will use. As soon as the Greens have one area closed off, they immediately start campaigning on another, which is fair enough as that is how they work.

The government believes that a much preferable way to proceed is to examine the whole Flinders area and not just Arkaroola, to identify those areas that are of particular iconic value in relation to their geological, environmental or aesthetic significance. The government has been undertaking that exercise in a collaborative effort between the Department for Environment and Heritage and the Department of Primary Industries and Resources. They have been looking at the mineral potential for that region so that in future we can better manage it. As I have indicated in this place on previous occasions, there has been exploration in that region for a century. Uranium was taken out of that region back in 1910 for Madam Curie in her early experiments, and there has been on or off mining and exploration activity since that time.

In future, as has come out of the experience of the past few years, we need to identify those areas of not just Arkaroola but of the whole northern Flinders Ranges which have special value in relation to their geology, tourism value or environmental significance. That exercise has been under way for some months now, and I expect that the Minister for Environment and Heritage will be able to release that information in the fairly near future.

Through continuing the licence Marathon has but keeping on ground and activities under suspension, the government is able to control what happens in that area; in other words, it can restrict any ground disturbing activity at least until two things happen: first, the changes to the Mining Act to which the honourable member referred and which I had indicated in a previous answer; and, secondly, developing this environmental management plan and identifying those areas. The honourable member will have that part of his question answered when that information is released fairly soon. Obviously the government needs to talk to stakeholders involved, which goes beyond just Marathon, as there are a number of other mineral exploration licences over the northern Flinders Ranges and other stakeholders are involved, and the government will discuss it with them before it releases that information for discussion hopefully in the relatively near future.

Given that Marathon's licence expired on Saturday, the government had to make a decision on how it would deal with the situation going forward. Through the extension of a licence but keeping activities suspended, the government has been able to keep control of the situation. Had we not done so—the honourable member read out my previous answer—it would have been possible for any other company to apply for a licence; and, had the government refused and gone to a challenge through the courts, they probably would have been successful.

The difference in relation to Warren Gorge, which the honourable member has raised, is that clearly it is one thing when a licence is not operative to use that part of the act, but I am sure that the courts would take quite a different view if upon renewal the government sought to act on the basis of that implication. I am sure the honourable member as a lawyer would understand that the interpretation would be significantly different had the government sought to set aside some area exempt from mining right at the time that a licence was up for renewal.

The Hon. M. PARNELL : I thank the minister for his answer. When the minister said (on Saturday) that some parts of Arkaroola should never be opened to mining, which parts did he have in mind?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I said, these have been identified and the report will be out for discussion. The honourable member should wait until he sees it. I have seen it.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink (the Shadow Environment Minister) interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Liberals are always saying that we should consult. They do not understand that it is polite to first talk to the people who are affected. Should they read about it in the newspapers or should we talk to them first and explain it? That is what we will do. We will do it properly. We will consult in the proper way. We will talk to those people who might be affected by this and, obviously, seek their agreement, because there are parts of the Northern Flinders Ranges that are either not within the national park or not within Arkaroola, and there may well be parts that have been identified as of particular environmental significance.

There will be parts that will have a low level of significance and there will be parts that will have a high level of significance, but not quite as essential, if you like, or as significant as others. Clearly, some sort of gradation of that needs to take place, and that is being done by quite extensive surveying of the region, and that is best described through the maps.

What I can say is that the area around the Arkaroola Lodge itself, as I understand it, has been in some sort of geological reserve. They are all matters that will be out for discussion, but we would like to, at least, give the stakeholders concerned some notice first before we make that information public.

TWS cyber-action - and where's jay?

The Wilderness Society has launched a cyber-action targetting the Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, asking him to intervene directly to ensure full protection for the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary.

It's available online here. Now it's a very straightforward matter to get your voice heard - please do it, and feel free to circulate the link widely. The Premier must know that he cannot shirk dealing with this matter.

and where's jay?...

Don't you think it's a little odd that the only Minister you are hearing from in regard to the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary is Paul Holloway, Minister for Mineral Resources Development?

I certainly do! After all, we're talking about one of the state's premier wild regions, and a sanctuary designated under the National Parks and Wildlife Act!

So, where is the Minister for Environment and Conservation - Jay Weatherill - in all this? I've written to ask him (if you are inclined to contact details follow this letter);

The Hon. Jay Weatherill
Minister for Environment and Conservation
Parliament House, South Australia

Proper protection for the Arkaroola Sanctuary

Dear Jay Weatherill,

Firstly, I must say I was pleased to read of your department's recent acquisitions that have expanded the area of parks on the west coast of the Eyre Peninsula. I congratulate you on and your department on taking such important steps to preserve the wild characteristics of this important area.

However it is not, sadly, of good news that I intend to write.

I refer to the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, and your fellow minister Paul Holloway's recent announcement that Marathon Resources' exploration lease will be renewed.

I admit I find myself dumbfounded by your government's strategy in this matter. Here we have a world-class wild area, run as an equally world-class eco-tourism facility (so successfully it was inducted into the SA Tourism Hall of Fame in 2007) - and yet, here we also have an avowedly 'environmentally-conscious' state government that seems to going out of its way to facilitate an assault on an area that should have been a clear choice for full protection.

Now, apparently, your government wants to go so far as to provide a 'second chance' to a company that has already disgraced itself at a time there was the option to simply be rid of them forever to hand! This has to lead to serious questions regarding your government's commitment to the protection of wild areas.

I believe that it was patently apparent from the off that this magnificent wild area is not an appropriate target for the mining industry. I would hope that in your role as Minister for the Environment - and the Minister responsible for the Act under which this sanctuary was declared - that you would agree with this assertion. What part of the state is wilder, or more unique, than the Arkaroola Sanctuary?

Shortly after this poor decision to allow exploration in the first place the Premier compounded matters, rather making a fool of himself by insisting that this proposed mine was only 'near Arkaroola', rather than in the very heart of the Sanctuary! This is a delusion I trust no-one in Cabinet still suffers from! This is also sufficient to entitle the public to genuinely wonder where what sort of attention your government was paying to this matter.

Since that time we have had the illegally buried waste fiasco (not to mention the vandalistic assault on a geological monument) which I'm sure I have no need to elaborate on, and then the farce of trying to get any other region in the state to voluntarily re-house the waste. I suggest that this has not left a favourable public impression of either the mining industry or your government as a regulator of it.

Which leads us to what I would argue is the main problem. Why on earth is it up to PIRSA and its minister to make these decisions in this kind of situation? Are you really content that your colleague, Paul Holloway, acts as a de facto Environment Minister for a vast proportion of the land area of the state? Even in the bulk of the area of our designated reserve system your power to prevent mining is pitted directly against his to endorse it - and as for any other wild area that hasn't had the good fortune to be afforded even this meagre protection… well, you tell me what you can do!

Given this bizarre and precarious situation the 'protections' provided by the Mining Act - including the recent proposed amendments - are meagre consolation to those who value the state's wild heritage.

I refer to those recent proposed revisions. The discussion document that was circulated to accompany their publication contains much that is of grave concern in itself. For a start, an apparently timely - in fact, I'd argue, long overdue - provision to allow for an 'Early No' to proposed projects on public interest grounds, including environmental concerns, is described as being unlikely to make its way into the final draft, due, it would seem, to 'industry concerns'. It is then asserted that an 'informal' advice to the applicant should be sufficient to dissuade them from proceeding. Would you call this 'process' adequate protection for areas of the calibre of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary? In fact, does it even qualify as a process?

Another seemingly long-overdue provision - allowing the Minister to exclude any 'Special Declared Area' from the provisions of the Mining Act on public interest grounds, thereby halting any exploration or mining - is held in the discussion (again, apparently to allay industry fears) to merely be a provision to allow for the assessment of competing claims in highly-prospective areas! So much for the hope that common-sense protection from outrageous proposals was about to be afforded!

But we must still step back still further here - so it's left up to the Mineral Resource Development Minister to determine from the off whether a proposed project is too potentially threatening to Environment and Heritage to proceed? Would you say that this is satisfactory? You could 'have a word' to him, I suppose, much as he's apparently content to leave himself in a position where he could 'have a word' to a company proposing to, say, sink a shaft into the centre of the Mawson Plateau or dig up some Organ Pipe formations on the Mount Ive station (if you think I'm exaggerating here I suggest you go pay a visit to PIRSA's SARIG geoserver some time!)

Does this strike you as a responsible position for any government that maintains it wishes to do the right thing by the environment to hold? I am gravely concerned that for vast areas of the state any 'presumption of innocence' in conflicting land-use claims effectively rests with the mining industry. Consequently I've had to scramble around for 2 years trying desperately to defend one of the state's most spectacular wild regions from a project that should simply never have been given permission to proceed.

I'll add that Marathon's activities have hardly been a great advertisement for the mining industry in this state, either. No-one gains from bad policy.

This is acknowledged by Minister Holloway, and here I would like to quote him, speaking in Parliament at the time of the defeat of Mark Parnell's bill to ban mining in sanctuaries -

I think what needs to be remembered here is that we have a system of national parks where we try to assess values and set the ground rules where mining, which includes exploration, can and cannot take place. Clearly, that system is imperfect. There are some regions of the state, for tourism and other values, that probably are not in national parks but where we still would want to restrict mining. I have certainly been talking to representatives of the Chamber of Mines and Energy, and I think we also need to involve some of the conservation groups, about identifying them so that we can manage it better…

By and large, the mining industry as a whole does not want to be involved in mining and issues which create public controversy and which create conditions that are to the detriment of the mining industry as a whole. They would rather avoid such issues. So, where there are areas of high conservation value or other aesthetic value that are not within national parks or are not within a classification of park that prohibits mining, we need to assess them. I know that my colleague the Minister for Environment and Conservation is aware of that, and we are trying to develop a system where we can ensure that we do not have these issues arise. [emphasis mine in both cases]

Can I ask how the development of this system is proceeding? Might I also suggest that the public is entitled to ask you both; if you won't act to protect the Arkaroola Sanctuary, where will you act?

So, ultimately, my question boils down to this; you, as the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, are the ultimate defender of the state's natural heritage; are you really content to see the magnificent Arkaroola Sanctuary go down to the 'mines and miners must be everywhere' lobby on your watch?

Yours faithfully,

Bill Doyle

contact details for Jay Weatherill

The Hon. Jay Weatherill
Minister for Environment and Conservation

Postal Address
GPO Box 1047
ADELAIDE SA 5001

Phone: 8463 5680
Fax: 8463 5681

e-mail: minister.weatherill@saugov.sa.gov.au

 

first response; environment minister not responsible...

Arrived 14/09/2007

"Dear Mr. Doyle,

On behalf of Gail Gago MLC, Minister for Environment and Conservation, thank you for your email concerning mining in Arkaroola Sanctuary.

While the Minister appreciates receiving your letter, I advise that this matter falls within the portfolio responsibility of Hon Paul Holloway MLC, Minister for Mineral Resources Development and your correspondence has been forwarded to that office for consideration.

Denise Kean
A/Office Manager to the Minister for Environment and Conservation
27/08/2007"

In response to correspondence available below: now is the write time! - run marathon off